hr2646 en Why the New Mental Health Reform Law Passed, and What It Means to Me <span>Why the New Mental Health Reform Law Passed, and What It Means to Me</span> <span><span lang="" about="/users/mpernell" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">MPernell</span></span> <span>Thu, 12/15/2016 - 12:09</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field__item"><p><em>By: Paul Gionfriddo, MHA president and CEO</em></p> <p>It is fair to say that a year ago, few people thought we’d be celebrating mental health reform as part of the last major legislation signed by President Obama. There were so many outstanding issues to resolve, and many on both sides appeared to have dug in their heels.</p> <p>But Congress did come through, due both to the dogged determination of a few key legislators, like Tim Murphy in the House and Chris Murphy in the Senate, and to the willingness of members of both parties and both chambers to find common ground.</p> <p>What changed the equation for us was that when the House and Senate proposals were offered in mid-2015 they were not only similar in their approach, but they were comprehensive as well. For the first time in a long time, we weren’t just talking about deep-end, post-crisis services and how we could educate sheriffs, judges, and correctional officers to divert people with late-stage mental illnesses from the criminal justice system. We were also talking about prevention, early intervention, and integrated health and behavioral health services. For the first time in many years, we were treating mental illnesses as public health – not public safety – matters.</p> <p>This gave advocates something around which we could come together. Whether we represented people with lived experience, family members, professionals, or providers, and whether we took a more clinical institution-based approach, or a community services-based approach, we could all agree that addressing mental health concerns before Stage 4 made a whole lot of sense.</p> <p>At Mental Health America, we offered scores of recommendations on both bills. At the same time, we major advocacy groups delivered a common message to Congress. We said that it was so important to pass legislation now that if members of Congress could find pathways to compromise, we could too.</p> <p>I met personally over the course of months with many members – Tim Murphy, Chris Murphy, Bill Cassidy, Fred Upton, Frank Pallone, Diana DeGette, Patty Murray, Chuck Schumer, and John Cornyn, to name a few. I even grabbed Paul Ryan one day in the airport to give a brief pitch, and asked an ever-gracious Todd Young to listen to a more extended one on a flight we shared to Florida.</p> <p>What impressed me about every member was that while they individually might have a special priority or differ in their approach, they were all committed to trying to get something done and all open to compromise.</p> <p>When the compromise legislation finally did emerge, the members of Congress overwhelming got behind it and showed us what that body is at its best. The President stepped up, too, adding mental health reform to his priorities, and making increasingly strong and positive statements about it as the year wore on.</p> <p>That’s why this legislation passed. And here’s what it means to me.</p> <p>My son Tim has lived with a serious mental illness for almost all his life. It wasn’t diagnosed early when it emerged during childhood. Even after it was, it was still treated as a behavioral, not a medical, problem. &nbsp;As a result, as a matter of public policy we sent Tim along a pathway to chronic homelessness, frequent incarceration, and occasional hospitalization. He’s been doing better the past year – a tribute to his resiliency more than anything else.</p> <p>I’ve seen first-hand, up close, and very personally what serious mental illnesses can do to individuals, their families, their friends, their educators, their employers, and their social support systems. I’ve seen how ill-prepared sheriffs, judges, lawyers, courts, and jails are to address mental health concerns.</p> <p>I’ve seen this as a parent and as a policymaker. &nbsp;And the conclusion to which I’ve come is that the problems we’ve created through the policy choices we’ve made laid foundations that severely limited the choices and pathways to recovery that people like Tim could make. </p> <p>We have needed a different approach. &nbsp;That’s what this new law gives us.</p> <p>It lays a foundation for a better system of care, services, and supports. &nbsp;It will open new doors for children and adults who live with mental health challenges. Over time, it will give people like Tim and the people who love them more pathways to recovery, and more choices along those pathways.</p> <p>There is a whole lot more we all need to do.</p> <p>But anyone who thinks this law – which strengthens SAMHSA, better coordinates our federal agencies, promotes innovation and evidence-based practice, establishes programs to help kids, promotes earlier intervention and better integration of health and behavioral health, gives more teeth to parity, supports suicide prevention, expands the mental health workforce, and demands a reduction in imprisonment of people with mental illnesses – isn’t the right approach either hasn’t read it, doesn’t care, or will never be satisfied by any law that could pass.</p> <p>It won’t happen overnight, but this law will help change the trajectories of lives like Tim’s. And for that, I am grateful to my Congress and my President, and feeling hopeful about the uncertain future.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-tags field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field__label">Tags</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/tags/prevention" hreflang="en">Prevention</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/tags/policy" hreflang="en">policy</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/tags/b4stage4" hreflang="en">b4stage4</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/tags/hr2646" hreflang="en">hr2646</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/tags/mental-health-reform" hreflang="en">mental health reform</a></div> </div> </div> <section> <article role="article" data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-109062" class="comment-wrapper comment js-comment by-anonymous clearfix"> <span class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1483208836"></span> <footer class="comment__meta"> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> </article> <p class="comment__author"><span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Samuel Dotson (not verified)</span></p> <p class="comment__time">Sat, 12/31/2016 - 13:27</p> <p class="comment__permalink"><a href="/comment/109062#comment-109062" hreflang="und">Permalink</a></p> </footer> <div class="comment__content"> <h3><a href="/comment/109062#comment-109062" class="permalink" rel="bookmark" hreflang="und">Saving Mental Health Reform</a></h3> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Thank you for this post. The 21st Century Cures Act is certainly a great achievement for our field, but I worry that many of its provisions become hollow if lose ground in a full ACA repeal. I'm a medical student at UNC Chapel Hill going into psychiatry, and I am working on a grassroots advocacy project to save the ACA's mental health provisions which my team thinks could be bipartisan targets. You can learn about our efforts at <a href=""></a>. Would MHA like to partner with us on this project? You can reach me at <a href=""></a>.</p> </div> <nav><drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=109062&amp;1=default&amp;2=und&amp;3=" token="ZYYL-Rdlwh5wRSM2_FNob7wWduIKXYAXviCFd9Tw4UE"></drupal-render-placeholder></nav> </div> </article> <article role="article" data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-109063" class="comment-wrapper comment js-comment by-anonymous clearfix"> <span class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1483496237"></span> <footer class="comment__meta"> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> </article> <p class="comment__author"><span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Jeanne (not verified)</span></p> <p class="comment__time">Tue, 01/03/2017 - 21:17</p> <p class="comment__permalink"><a href="/comment/109063#comment-109063" hreflang="und">Permalink</a></p> </footer> <div class="comment__content"> <h3><a href="/comment/109063#comment-109063" class="permalink" rel="bookmark" hreflang="und">Repeal of Affordable Care Act provisions for mental health</a></h3> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>As a parent who has struggled with paying for medication and hospitalization for my adult child, I am deeply concerned about the effects the Republican monopoly on government will have in 2017 and thereafter. I am retired and the Affordable Care Act allowed me to support myself instead of only buying medication for my affected off-springs with my small pension. Will the new president and congress take back the help that we finally won for children and families who live daily in the shadow of mental health challenges?</p> </div> <nav><drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=109063&amp;1=default&amp;2=und&amp;3=" token="KjATT6RYhxqGKL3iMFdgcFvLTEbwgpH4k8Tkwj5_wJ8"></drupal-render-placeholder></nav> </div> </article> <article role="article" data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-109092" class="comment-wrapper comment js-comment by-anonymous clearfix"> <span class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1488432922"></span> <footer class="comment__meta"> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> </article> <p class="comment__author"><span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Joyce Berryman (not verified)</span></p> <p class="comment__time">Thu, 03/02/2017 - 00:35</p> <p class="comment__permalink"><a href="/comment/109092#comment-109092" hreflang="und">Permalink</a></p> </footer> <div class="comment__content"> <h3><a href="/comment/109092#comment-109092" class="permalink" rel="bookmark" hreflang="und">Caregivers</a></h3> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Caregivers of mental health adults are discriminated against due to the lack of understanding how stressful this role is. After 4 years burn out and anxiety haunt you day and night. We need to be heard..we are the only thing keeping our loved ones safe.</p> </div> <nav><drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=109092&amp;1=default&amp;2=und&amp;3=" token="fU6npOfGkKbYNhbqOmfl0oBxUtSPUiSV4gCIarbBRlU"></drupal-render-placeholder></nav> </div> </article> <h2>Add new comment</h2> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderForm" arguments="0=node&amp;1=1383&amp;2=comment_node_blog_post&amp;3=comment_node_blog_post" token="DuMqAHB2SxLvQ_Y1kQGoBAa87rfHbBnj1ulgul1dHHs"></drupal-render-placeholder> </section> Thu, 15 Dec 2016 17:09:45 +0000 MPernell 1383 at Why It's Time to Come Together <span>Why It&#039;s Time to Come Together</span> <span><span lang="" about="/users/ewallace" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">EWallace</span></span> <span>Fri, 11/13/2015 - 14:32</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong><em>By: Paul Gionfriddo, president and CEO, MHA</em></strong></p> <p>I’ve now been at this job for about a year and a half, but I have to say, the last couple months has been the highlight to date. Because MHA and mental health advocates are at a pivotal moment. We could very well see <em>major</em> mental health reform—and for the first time in years there has been real, tangible progress on Capitol Hill. But not everyone in the mental health community has been supportive of the current legislation before Congress. There are legitimate concerns, but I want to speak directly to my fellow advocates right now, about why I think that mere opposition to legislation at this stage is short-sighted. &nbsp;</p> <p>I'll admit to my bias here—while as many of you know MHA has not endorsed a particular bill yet, we have taken a strong position that members of Congress should come together to pass something, we have actively offered our ideas (not all of which have been accepted), we have commended both sides for their efforts so far, and we believe that compromise from here is both possible and far preferable to the do-nothing alternative.</p> <p>Here's why. Since the failure of the Murphy and Barber bills last year, we worked as hard as anyone to engage directly with members of Congress (including Tim Murphy) to create a bill that would (1) not mandate AOT in all states, (2) not cut existing grant programs to fund new ones, (3) not gut PAIMI, (4) not gut SAMHSA, and (5) not be so focused on public safety and deep-end considerations at the expense of screening, earlier intervention, and services integration. We also wanted the professionalism of peers who worked among other clinical providers to be acknowledged.</p> <p>These things were not all that was in 3717 last year, but they were the major things that led us to oppose it. &nbsp;</p> <p>So we were pleased when Tim Murphy and Eddie Bernice Johnson introduced HR 2646 this year, because they listened to advocates and addressed all of these things.&nbsp; But in our view, while the bill was a good start, it did not get all the way there:</p> <ul> <li>It restored the PAIMI funding, but not all the essential advocacy duties;</li> <li>It did not clarify that the most restrictive AOT programs would not be forced on states;</li> <li>It appeared to bring all peer-delivered services under the supervision of clinicians, to which many advocates strenuously objected;</li> <li>It populated all SAMHSA's advisory councils with people with clinical backgrounds and/or no history of work with SAMHSA;</li> <li>By not referring to SED in certain areas, it left children out of some services and programs;</li> <li>By not identifying authorization levels for programs, it left open the possibility that existing programs might still be cut to fund new ones; and</li> <li>It did not make it national policy to end incarceration of people with mental illness.&nbsp;</li> </ul> <p>So we (and others) asked for more changes to be made.</p> <p>The result was an improved manager's amendment, which now includes:</p> <ul> <li>Clarity that there is no mandate for non-AOT states to adopt AOT;</li> <li>Clarity that the only peer services impacted by the best practices study - which we hope will lead to direct private insurance reimbursement of peer-delivered service - would be peers working formally in clinical care teams;</li> <li>Restoration of most if not all PAIMI functions;</li> <li>A plan to end incarceration of nonviolent offenders with MI within ten years;</li> <li>Continued support for early ID, intervention, and integration, with SED now added in several places;</li> <li>Loosening of 42 CFR pt. 2 to give individuals - not substance use providers - greater control over their full health records;</li> <li>Equal representation on the advisory councils between clinicians and non-clinicians;</li> <li>Continued support for innovation;</li> <li>Greater parity oversight;</li> <li>No cuts to existing programs; and</li> <li>Block grant flexibility (I do not know who proposed this; I imagine it could be dropped during the next round, but from the perspective of a mental health advocate, it is a good idea).</li> </ul> <p>However, after getting the initial score, the subcommittee also removed some other provisions we liked that cost money, including HIT and Excellence in MH Act support.</p> <p>I continue to believe that the current bill can be improved, if members of Congress work together and advocates push them to do so. &nbsp;</p> <p>If advocates speak with a consistent voice to policymakers, here are some of the things that I think are at least possible:</p> <ul> <li>The Open Dialogues concept could possibly be substituted to address the family/HIPAA issue.</li> <li>Some additional language that NDRN has identified could be added in the PAIMI section to clean it up (and remember, the current Senate bill does not include any PAIMI language at all).</li> <li>A financial incentive for states with ACT or other evidence-based programs, like the incentive for AOT, could be added.</li> <li>The future role of SAMHSA, and its relationship to the assistant secretary, could be better defined, ultimately clearly elevating the standing of mental health within the federal government (and we can all agree that this is needed, even if everyone can't agree on the route to getting there).</li> </ul> <p>Others of you may feel that more good things are possible too, and if so, our pledge is to continue to work with any organization(s) that would like to try to get these and other things into the bill during the next mark-up.&nbsp; Right now, all it would take is a few Congressional champions to emerge in each committee of jurisdiction who make inclusion of these things the centerpiece of their support of the legislation.</p> <p>I recognize that I'm probably a policy incrementalist at heart, but it's hard not to be when you've been involved in the process for many years.&nbsp; I understand that there are people or organizations who may still find all of these improvements inadequate and oppose any legislation that uses terms like "AOT" or "Assistant Secretary".&nbsp; I would strongly encourage them to think about the implications of a "just say no" approach this year.&nbsp; The risk is this: With lives at stake, we might get another opportunity next session or the one after to get a totally different bill, but we also might not get another opportunity to make this kind of a difference in our lifetimes - and history is littered with both public officials and advocates whose decisions not to take part of a loaf ultimately cost them the whole thing.</p> <p>Paul</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-tags field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field__label">Tags</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/tags/mental-health-reform" hreflang="en">mental health reform</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/tags/hr2646" hreflang="en">hr2646</a></div> </div> </div> <section> <h2>Add new comment</h2> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderForm" arguments="0=node&amp;1=1083&amp;2=comment_node_blog_post&amp;3=comment_node_blog_post" token="f7M6y19pD27faie32BnYBmOjNC-xLuT8bvuqCUkiwh4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </section> Fri, 13 Nov 2015 19:32:01 +0000 EWallace 1083 at Talking About the Murphy-Johnson Bill <span>Talking About the Murphy-Johnson Bill</span> <span><span lang="" about="/users/ewallace" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">EWallace</span></span> <span>Tue, 06/23/2015 - 14:44</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field__item"><p><em>By Paul Gionfriddo, MHA president and CEO</em></p> <p>It’s a whole new ballgame in Congress this year. People are talking to one another, instead of shouting at one another. And there is a sense that as a result comprehensive mental health reform legislation will finally get serious consideration.</p> <p>Last week, I testified at a Congressional hearing on HR 2646 – the 2015 Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act. It’s a brand new bill from the one we saw last year that we were unable to support. It emphasizes screening, secondary and tertiary prevention, early intervention, and care integration in multiple places, fitting nicely within MHA’s Prevention-Early Intervention-Integration-Recovery (PEIR) framework.&nbsp; It removes the mandate for AOT.&nbsp; It elevates the lead federal mental health agency. It seeks to enhance the mental health workforce. And it keeps many good provisions from last year – especially in the area of suicide prevention – that are greatly needed.</p> <p>So what led to the changes this year? I think it’s because we’ve been successful at advocating for mental health services “B4Stage4,”and because affiliates and advocates throughout MHA spoke up for a different approach this year.&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>But in an extraordinary moment, the lead sponsor, Representative Tim Murphy, wrapped up the hearing by crediting us directly for the changed approach in the bill.</strong></p> <p>So where do we go from here?</p> <p>Our position is this: this bill is a good starting point.</p> <p>That means there’s still work to be done. We need to protect the good things in the bill, and hope Congress will fix a few things, too.</p> <p><strong>Among these are the provisions related to Protection and Advocacy services for people with mental health concerns.</strong></p> <p>This year’s proposal does not reduce funding for these needed legal services by up to 85 percent, as last year’s did.&nbsp; But it limits too greatly the activities in which Protection and Advocacy organizations can engage. The good news is that the sponsors have already agreed to move their position. So we are arguing that in addition to abuse and neglect cases, these advocates must be allowed to help people with housing, employment, education, treatment, and community services and supports. And we think they still must play a role in educating policymakers and the public on best practices and policy.</p> <p><strong>Adding a provision to end the incarceration of nonviolent people with mental illness is another priority for us.</strong></p> <p>No one believes that these individuals should be “treated” in jails and prisons, and changing this could also capture the funds needed to support the new programs called for in this bill.&nbsp; At $50,000 per year for 362,000+ jail inmates with mental illnesses, that would come to roughly $17.8 billion – plenty to go around.</p> <p><strong>Another area in which we think there could be a better approach is in changing the HIPAA provisions so that behavioral health and general health data are treated exactly the same way.</strong></p> <p>Because you can’t integrate healthcare when you segregate healthcare information. And you can’t treat a whole patient with half a medical record.</p> <p><strong>In the coming days and weeks, we intend to continue to make our views known, and participate in a positive way in the deliberations over this proposal</strong> – and a counterpart Murphy-Cassidy proposal that will be introduced in the Senate (that’s Senator Chris Murphy, not Representative Tim Murphy, who along with Senator Bill Cassidy is crafting a Senate bill).</p> <p>Here’s what else we’re doing, that we’d encourage you to do, too.&nbsp; We’re talking to members of Congress in both parties, because this is not a partisan issue. We’re talking to Rep. Tim Murphy, the lead House sponsor, to explain our positions and ask for his support.&nbsp;</p> <p>We’re keeping an open dialogue going with affiliates and advocates. In the coming weeks, we’ll be providing tools and talking points for effective advocacy, including ideas for blog posts, op edits, and social media posts.&nbsp; And we hope you’ll also feel free to tweet encouragement and support for MHA’s views to the sponsors of the legislation.</p> <p>We’re calling on everyone to do all they can to help us get the best bill possible – one that, when all is said and done, we feel comfortable saying that we support.</p> <p>We know that no legislation will be perfect, or include everything we want.&nbsp; But we’ve come a long way this past year, and have a long way yet to go!</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-tags field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field__label">Tags</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/tags/mental-health" hreflang="en">mental health</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/tags/murphy-johnson" hreflang="en">murphy-johnson</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/tags/hr2646" hreflang="en">hr2646</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/tags/b4stage4" hreflang="en">b4stage4</a></div> </div> </div> <section> <article role="article" data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-107557" class="comment-wrapper comment js-comment by-anonymous clearfix"> <span class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1435635241"></span> <footer class="comment__meta"> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> </article> <p class="comment__author"><span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Dottie McKissac (not verified)</span></p> <p class="comment__time">Mon, 06/29/2015 - 23:34</p> <p class="comment__permalink"><a href="/comment/107557#comment-107557" hreflang="und">Permalink</a></p> </footer> <div class="comment__content"> <h3><a href="/comment/107557#comment-107557" class="permalink" rel="bookmark" hreflang="und">Health Insurance does not fairly cover Mental Health treatment</a></h3> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>PEEHIP "Teacher Retirement Health Insurance" of AL discriminates in services provided for Mental illness and Physical illness. There are no preferred providers other than those few counselors available at County Mental Health Centers. Outpatient services' deductibles for any Mental Heath treatment are 3 times than those for physical outpatient treatment. Descriptions of discriminatory Mental Health coverage are not even included in PEEHIP's handbook of services, but only appear on-line and available only to customer service representatives by inquiry. Isn't this against Federal Law ? Can you help us make State Teacher retirement Health Coverage fair ?</p> </div> <nav><drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=107557&amp;1=default&amp;2=und&amp;3=" token="Zmr-aeqCJihtYS2gA0nHHnG2bqaKG32yYynTMjUe2tU"></drupal-render-placeholder></nav> </div> </article> <article role="article" data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-107736" class="comment-wrapper comment js-comment by-anonymous clearfix"> <span class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1441571001"></span> <footer class="comment__meta"> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> </article> <p class="comment__author"><span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Jerry (not verified)</span></p> <p class="comment__time">Sun, 09/06/2015 - 16:23</p> <p class="comment__permalink"><a href="/comment/107736#comment-107736" hreflang="und">Permalink</a></p> </footer> <div class="comment__content"> <h3><a href="/comment/107736#comment-107736" class="permalink" rel="bookmark" hreflang="und">Mental health</a></h3> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>It is a good starting point, but understand many people need help now, and don't have time to wait while politicians, and all the red tape generated in the progress builds up. Great strides have been made in cancer treatment, and other treatments, but mental illness remains stuck in the past, or largely ignored, because it is so misunderstood by society in general. You can deal with it now, or future generations will have to deal with the mess created by ignoring the devastating impact it has on not only the person, but society in general. The cost will be much greater in dollars and cents,and I can't put a price on human suffering by ignoring it or doing nothing, youth with mental illness. left untreated stand a great chance of becoming mentally ill adults without hope for tomorrow. In my own life I have seen so little change in 40 years as far as treatment, as compared to other illnesses, and this needs to change!</p> </div> <nav><drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=107736&amp;1=default&amp;2=und&amp;3=" token="b-vxRjhaG2GRLaxNb67fVrpTFvIXDxB6xwtCAIQ_FOA"></drupal-render-placeholder></nav> </div> </article> <h2>Add new comment</h2> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderForm" arguments="0=node&amp;1=967&amp;2=comment_node_blog_post&amp;3=comment_node_blog_post" token="JgncenIiS46P6JBPbF6copdPyO0CIbagLU8IRjgssS4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </section> Tue, 23 Jun 2015 18:44:14 +0000 EWallace 967 at